Optimization of shing vessels using a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm

Mark A. Gammon
1
Defence R&D CanadaAtlantic, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 August 2010
Accepted 5 March 2011
Editor-in-Chief: A.I. Incecik
Available online 23 May 2011
Keywords:
Optimization
Multi-objective
Fishing vessel
Resistance
Seakeeping
Stability
a b s t r a c t
A shing boat hull is used as an example of how hull form optimization can be accomplished using a
Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA). The particular MOGA developed during this study allows
automatic selection of a few Pareto Optimal results for examination by the designers while searching
the complete Pareto Front. The optimization uses three performance indices for resistance, seakeeping
and stability to modify the hull shape to obtain optimal hull offsets as well as optimal values for the
principal parameters of length, beam and draft. The modication of the 148/1-B shing boat hull, the
parent hull form of the
_
Istanbul Technical University (
_
IT

U) series of shing boats, is presented by rst

xing the principal parameters and allowing the hull offsets to change, and secondly by simultaneously
allowing variation of both the principal parameters and the hull offsets. Improvements in all three
objectives were found. For further research the methodology can be modied to allow for the addition
of other performance objectives, such as cost or specic mission objectives, as well as the use of
enhanced performance prediction solvers. In addition, one or more hulls could be evaluated by
experiment to validate the results of using this particular optimization approach.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Hull form optimization is a process that involves changing a
ship or boat hull in order to improve performance such as
resistance, seakeeping, stability and so forth. The hull is a funda-
mental component of a vessel and has a signicant inuence on the
performance and consequently on overall success of the design.
A single design optimization problem optimizes a single objective
function while satisfying some design requirements, while multi-
ple objective design optimization examines trade-offs between
often conicting aspects of the design problem. The individual
objective or cost functions, such as minimization of resistance by
Day and Doctors (1997) or minimization of the total catamaran
resistance by Danisman et al. (2001) or minimization of the wash
from high speed vessels by Zaraphonitis et al. (2003), represent
different aspects of design optimization.
The shape of the hull impacts every aspect of a design. Three
performance objectives are considered as examples from among
the numerous issues facing a design team, namely stability,
resistance and seakeeping. Stability must satisfy or exceed certain
constraints and is often modeled as a constraint rather than an
objective function. Seakeeping obviously impacts human safety
and comfort. Resistance is one of the chief costs in the operation
of the vessel, such that minimizing resistance by even a few
percent can lead to substantial savings, especially in large ships.
For example, using a bunker fuel charge of approximately $450/
metric ton,
2
given a ship that burns 150 ton/day over a 14 day trip
across the Pacic,
3
the overall cost for fuel alone would be
$945,000. An improvement of even 2% would represent a savings
of $18,900 per trip. Minimizing resistance by creating a slender
hull, for example, conicts with stability performance, which is
increased by the greater beam. Greater beam in turn increases
viscous resistance. An optimized design requires that these
conicting performance criteria can reach compromise.
Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) and Articial Neural Networks
(ANN or NN) offer effective methods for conducting optimization
and data analysis. EA techniques may be separated into Genetic
Algorithms (GAs), Evolution Strategies (ESs) and Evolutionary
programming (EP). In this study, the term GA is predominantly
used to reect the encoding and characteristics of the algorithm,
unless reference is made to a specic technique. For example, Day
and Doctors (1997) studied hull form optimization using a GA
technique in which the objective was to minimize resistance.
Their study varied a wide range of hull displacements and
examined the optimization trends that occurred on the basis of
variation of the principal parameters. Yasukawa (2000) and
Dejhalla et al. (2002) have both conducted a resistance optimiza-
tion analysis of a hull form using GA methods where the objective
was also to minimize wave resistance. Those studies focused on
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
Ocean Engineering
0029-8018/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.03.001
E-mail addresses: mark.gammon@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, mark.gammon@forces.gc.ca
1
Research conducted while on leave at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
2
http://www.bunkerworld.com/markets/surcharges/tsa
3
http://www.tsacarriers.org/fs_bunker.html
Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064
existing hulls that were modied by varying the hull offsets
slightly while maintaining the same principal characteristics of
the length, beam, draft and displacement. While other optimiza-
tion methods such as simulated annealing, Lipshitz Global Opti-
mization and other methods are routinely used, as stated by Gen
and Cheng (2000), the inherent characteristics of genetic algo-
rithms, i.e. multiple directional and global search, lack of math-
ematical requirements, ability to handle all types of objective
functions and ability to be combined with conventional methods,
make MOGA techniques well suited to multiple objective optimi-
zation problems.
The MOGA approach presented in this study can be extended
to any hull form optimization problem in which the design
requirements are known and can be formulated as a multiple
objective problem. As an example, the MOGA methodology was
applied to shing boats in order to determine whether a more
optimal boat hull could be derived. The current study represents
one example of how this specic MOGA can be applied during the
initial and concept stages of vessel design. The signicant pro-
blem faced by the designer, whether the vessel is small or large, is
the choice of the optimal principal parameters that will lead to a
successful design. Most, if not all, MOGA methodologies conduct
design optimization by searching out the entire Pareto Front,
which will be described later. While effective in determining the
optimal candidates, the plethora of possible solutions leads to a
solution space nearly equal to the population sample size, which
can number in the hundreds. It is usually left to the designer to
choose the more favoured design, which can be a daunting task.
The current methodology allows an automatic selection of the
number of optimal compromise solutions to give to the designer.
In addition, the calculation of the performance objectives in this
study is deliberately not computer intensive, enabling cost-
effective initial boat design studies to be conducted as in
Gammon (2004). Future research would focus on the use of more
advanced functional representations of the performance objec-
tives as in Maisonneuve et al. (2003) using this MOGA approach,
as additional resources become available.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 is concerned with
the problem formulation and in particular the denition of the
multi-objective problem along with the development of the
relevant indices that represent the individual cost or performance
functions for each of the objectives. Then, a particular form of
MOGA is presented in Section 3 with some methods for encoding
the problem. Section 4 presents results of application of this
methodology using two different examples of the Istanbul Tech-
nical University (ITU) shing hull, the rst with xed principal
parameters of length, beam and draft, and the second allowing
these parameters to change simultaneously with the hull offsets.
The shing boat series as described by Kafal et al. (1979) was
developed by ITU for Turkish shermen in order to have a
standard series with known and measured characteristics in
terms of seakeeping and resistance, for which experimental data
is well known. Finally, Section 5 gives some conclusions regarding
this particular approach along with the scope for future work.
2. Optimization problem formulation
Determining the optimal principal parameters for length (L), beam
(B) and draft (T), as well as volumetric displacement (r), is most often
accomplished by parametric variation of a parent hull. Usually hull
form optimization consists of only changing offsets of an already
suitable hull in order to optimize a particular performance objective.
However, at the preliminary design stage, the principal parameters of
the vessel must be determined. These are often determined through
regression based analyses predicting performance attributes from a
database of known designs. The focus of this study is to compute the
performance factors directly for each candidate hull. In addition to the
principal parameters, the optimal hull offsets for the hull shape or
hull form should be determined simultaneously. That is to say, the
near-optimal hull form should also include the near-optimal length,
beam and draft, as well as satisfy a displacement requirement, in
order to create a near-optimal design.
2.1. General multi-objective problem denition
In generic terms, the functional form of the problem is given as
follows. We need to determine the vector of decision variables as
described in Coello Coello (1996):
x
!

1
,x

2
,x

3
,. . .,x

T
where x
j
, j 1,2,. . .,n are the decision variables. As an example,
for this study, the decision variables include the principal para-
meters of the vessel and the hull offsets, i.e.
x
1
L; x
2
B; x
3
T; x
4
W
where L, B and T are the length, beamand draft, respectively. The nal
decision variable W is the hull offsets represented as a matrix.
The solution must satisfy the m number of inequality con-
straints:
g
i
Z0, i 1,. . .,m
and p the number of equality constraints:
h
i
0, i 1,. . .,p
where p as the number of equality constraints should be less than
the number of decision variables n in order to avoid being over-
constrained. Most design factors can be captured as constraints,
as well as limits of the solution domain. The constraints are
discussed further under the design requirements.
The solutions must optimize the vector function:
f
!
f
1
x
!
,f
2
x
!
,. . .,f
k
x
!

T
The objective functions f
1
x
!
, f
2
x
!
and f
3
x
!
represent
resistance, seakeeping and stability indices, respectively. In shor-
tened form:
f
!

opt
x O
f
!
x
!

f
!
: O-R
k
Of x
!
AR
n
9 g
!
x
!
Z0, h x
!
0g
where k is the number of objectives.
The multi-objective denition of optimality, known as Pareto
Optimality, is dened as a point in n-dimensional space repre-
sented by
x
!

AO
such that for every, x
!

AO and I {1,2,y,k}, I either

8
i AI
f
i
x
!
f
i
x
!

or there is at least one iAI such that

f
i
x
!
4f
i
x
!

(for maximization problems) or f

i
x
!
of
i
x
!

(for
minimization problems).
In this study, the term near-optimal is used to describe a
design choice that achieves some compromise in the performance
objectives while satisfying constraints for the design features.
2.2. Formulation of performance indices
2.2.1. Objective 1resistance performance index
The non-dimensional total resistance coefcient C
T
)
ship
is
C
T

ship
C
v
C
W

ship
c
a
1kC
F
C
W
c
a
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1055
where C
v
is the viscous resistance coefcient, C
W
)
ship
is the wave
making resistance coefcient and c
a
is a correlation allowance. C
v
can be represented in terms of the frictional resistance coefcient
C
F
and form factor k, i.e. C
v
(1k)C
F
. The form factor k is
determined from the model test and is assumed independent of
speed and scale. For example, in the ITU shing hull forms the
tow tank test for the parent form of the ITU series, ITU 148/1-B,
showed a form factor of 0.25 whose tests were done with
5 models with different scales as described by Kafal et al.
(1979). The same form factor is assumed for the full-scale ship.
The non-dimensional form of the total resistance R
T
)
ship
is a
function of the ship speed V and wetted surface area S of the ship:
C
T

ship

R
T

ship
0:5rV
2
S
where r is the density of water.
The International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC) proposed a
frictional resistance formula based on the Reynolds number. The
ITTC 1957 frictional line is calculated as follows:
C
F

0:075
logRn2
2
where Rn is the Reynolds number given by
Rn
rVL
m
where m is the viscosity, V is the ship speed and the length of the
vessel is L.
In order to determine C
T
)
ship
, we need to determine C
W
)
ship
, the
wave making resistance coefcient. C
W
)
model
for a model is
assumed to be equal to the full scale ship C
w
)
ship
, i.e.
C
W

ship
C
W

model
Hence
C
T

ship
C
W

model
1kC
F
c
a
For the example in this study, wave resistance C
W
is calculated
using a transom modied Michell integral using potential ow
theory, as described in Gammon (1990). A comparison of wave
resistance with experimental, Michell integral and the modied
transom integration is shown in Fig. 1. It would appear that the
transom effect is considerable for vessels with a low L/B ratio as in
Gammon and Alkan (2001). At the higher Froude number (Fn) of
0.5 the effect is over pronounced using the transom theory, but as
the normal vessel speed is approximately 10 knots, the prediction
up to Fn 0.4 is in good agreement, and considerably closer to the
experimental curve as compared to the unmodied Michell integral.
A Resistance Coefcient Index (RCI) is formulated from each C
T
value at each speed or Froude number as a representation of the
area under the resistance curve to measure the overall resistance
performance. In the current approach, the speeds are treated
equally. The RCI is calculated as follows:
RCI

N1
i 1
1
2
C
T
i
C
T
i 1
Fn
i 1
Fn
i

where N is the number of Froude numbers, C

Ti
the resistance
coefcient at speed i and Fn
i
the Froude number at speed i.
The resulting objective for f
1
x
!
is then represented as
follows:
opt f
1
x
!
minRCIL,B,T,W
2.2.2. Objective 2seakeeping performance index
Seakeeping performance is a complex area of analysis and needed
resolution into a single seakeeping performance index similar to the
resistance coefcient index in order to be useful in the current multi-
optimization problem. In ship motion, numerous seakeeping factors
are relevant including acceleration at various points on the vessel,
slamming effects, crew response and motion sickness index. Since
there are numerous seakeeping factors, and these represent aspects of
this particular performance attribute of the hull form, it was prudent
to resolve these into a single performance index.
The hull form optimization hypothesis is that the best hull
form is the one that minimizes all of the motions. While there
may be conicting inuences in the motions between heave, pitch
and rolling, the latter was considered to be characterized by the
beam and may also be regarded as part of the stability criteria.
The focus for the seakeeping performance is the heave and pitch
motions as shown in Fig. 2.
For the purpose of comparing candidate hull forms, the problem is
then simplied by considering only the vertical motion fromthe pitch
and heave. The total vertical motion, measured at the bow, is
combined from the maximum heave and pitch motions. This is
multiplied by the heave acceleration to give a pseudo-equivalent
momentum. The result is averaged over each ship speed to determine
pseudo energy density. The mass of the vessel is deliberately left out
as the combined pitch and heave are gurative and the maximum
values of each motion do not frequently occur simultaneously.
Vertical motion could be combined into one vertical seakeeping
motion index by integrating the values obtained at each heading
but just head seas were utilized over each ship speed. The equation
for the seakeeping index is given as
SKI

N1
i 1
1
2
Vert
i
Vert
i 1
V
i 1
V
i

where Vert represents the vertical calculation at each ship speed (V)
using the heave (H
rms
), pitch (f
rms
) and heave acceleration (

H
rms
):
Vert

H
rms
H
rms

L
2
sinf
rms

_ _ _ _
As for the rst objective, the optimization for the second
objective f
2
x
!
is represented as follows:
opt f
2
x
!
minSKIL,B,T,W
2.2.3. Objective 3stability performance index
Stability is an area of ship research that is by itself too large to
treat in detail. It is a fundamental performance criterion that is
regulated by various ship classication societies such as the American
Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Lloyds and must be part of the
evaluation of any concept design. A stability performance index is
used in the hull form optimization program that was developed by
Gammon and Yilmaz (2003) using design model parameters for
stability that had previously been modeled using regression-based
formulas from Grubisic (2001) and Yilmaz (1999). These parameters
take the form of stability constraints dened for the particular ship
design problem, given requirements from the International Maritime
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4
Fn
C
w
,
C
r
Michell
Gammon
Experimental
Fig. 1. Comparison of Michell and Transom-modied wave resistance with
experimental result for ITU Fishing Boat ITU 148/1-B at a particular load case
(L.C.1).
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1056
Organization (IMO) codes on intact stability or other regulation
sources.
A single measure for the stability index in order to minimize
the number of design objectives was required in order to develop
a similar metric as used in other hull design problems such as for
sailing yachts given in Larrson and Eliasson (2000), but which
could still provide a general indication of stability performance.
The use of the stability index based on a single stability char-
acteristic such as either the area under the GZ curve or the
vanishing angle can be erroneous as these single measurements
may be the same for different hulls. As the objective is to compare
different hulls then the stability index should have the ability to
differentiate between different hulls. A stability index that uses
multiple stability characteristics provides a better assessment for
the purpose of evaluating which hulls should be considered as
more optimal, when considering multiple objectives.
As a result the use of both the GM as a constraint according to
regulations and also a GZ curve is utilized as depicted in Fig. 3.
The positive area under the GZ curve up to the vanishing angle f
n
gives a good measure of the kinetic energy that can be absorbed
by the hull. The angle at which maximum GZ occurs, f
m
, is an
indication of the angle after which the hull may have a tendency
to capsize as a result of a diminishing GZ.
The hydrostatics are calculated for each hull form and the GZ
curve is used to generate a stability index as follows:
STIX f
m
_
f
v
0
GZfdf
This is taken as the area under the GZ curve up to the
vanishing angle multiplied by the angle at which maximum GZ
occurs. The resulting stability index is indicative of the overall
stability of the hull form, but does not preclude other stability
requirements. For example, additional constraints to limit stabi-
lity in order to avoid unwanted stiffness in the optimal results
could be used, though the current study only used a constraint
based on minimum GM requirements. For the third objective
f
3
x
!
, the optimization is then represented as
opt f
3
x
!
maxSTIXL,B,T,W
3. Genetic algorithm approach
Multi-objective problems exist in a wide range of practical
applications. Though other methods such as weighted averaging
techniques can be used, multiple objective problems can be
treated by the determination of the Pareto Front, in which no
solution is dominated by another in one or more performance
criteria as described by Gen and Cheng, (2000). Genetic Algo-
rithms are stochastic search and optimization techniques that
have the following ve basic components:
A genetic representation of solutions to the problem;
A way to create an initial population of solutions;
An evaluation function rating solutions in terms of their
tness;
Genetic operators that alter genetic composition of offspring
during reproduction; and
Values for parameters of Genetic Algorithms.
For the ship designer, nding solutions all along the Pareto
Front using these techniques raises the problem of choosing the
near-optimal compromise solutions, from which some will have
to be considered as more favorable as a compromise than others.
Most often, the choice of a compromise solution is left to the
designer. The need to automate this approach or at least provide
some assistance in achieving a compromise or near-optimal
solution has been a signicant driver in the development of the
current optimization methodology.
For this study investigation into a particular MOGA was used
to address the multiple objective issues by automatically deter-
mining a compromise solution. The purpose of generating this
MOGA solver was alluded to earlier, that is, the problem facing
the designer is not, conversely, the search for all solutions from
the entire Pareto Front, which is usually the only optimal strategy
available in multi-objective problems. While aggregation or other
preferential and interactive techniques are used, the goal of this
study was to achieve some level of automation, i.e. to be able to
come up with a few compromise solutions, which could then be
examined by the design team.
3.1. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA)
The following was developed in order to address some of these
specic issues. The canonical Genetic Algorithm by Goldberg
(1989) is modied as shown in Fig. 4 by treating each objective
sequentially. For each objective the population is evaluated
separately, and the genetic operations applied after each evalua-
tion to generate the next population. The current optimum, if
there is one, is returned at each evaluation. In some ways this
approach is similar to the VEGA approach presented by Schaffer
(1985) where different subpopulations are kept separate for a
number of generations, and then allowed to mix. That method
allowed the population to approach a compromise solution that
DWL
HEAVE
Wave
Total Vertical Motion
HEAVE
PITCH
PITCH
Fig. 2. Pitch and heave motion combined into total vertical motion.

GZ [m]
GM [m]

m
1 rad
GZ
max

v
Fig. 3. GZ curve with stability index elements.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1057
would perform well in more than one objectives. Unlike VEGA,
the proposed methodology selects parents that are based only one
objective. The next objective in the sequence is evaluated with
the population generated from parents that performed well from
the previous objective. The treatment of the multi-objective
problem is reduced to single objectives in sequence, similar to a
gradient method in which each functions evaluation leads to a
determination of the direction of search. The relative importance
of which objective is used was found to be immaterial, as long as
the requisite number of iterations, of a minimum of approxi-
mately 10 generations, was used. However, this could vary with
the design problem and only the specic design problem here is
discussed. Further research in the generic application of this
method would be required. It should be noted that the require-
ment to have a sufcient population size, as well as a minimum
number of generations, means that the efciency of the genetic
algorithm is quite subject to the degree of processing required to
evaluate each objective. Furthermore, the accuracy of the results
is also subject to the individual solutions provided by the
functional evaluations of each objective.
3.2. Hull modeling using chromosomes
In order to be able to use evolutionary algorithms for hull form
optimization, it is necessary to develop a scheme to map the
problem into a format that can be utilized by the algorithm. The
parameters of the problem need to be dened. In every applica-
tion of an GA, the problem of mapping the parameters for
candidate solutions follows from the development of the Genetic
Algorithm. As stated by Gen and Cheng (2000), encoding the
solutions may require further development of heuristics to
manage the solution properties. For the rst part of the hull form
Fig. 4. Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm approach.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1058
model the principal parameters are considered. Given the length,
beam and draft the basic dimensions of the hull are dened. Gen
and Cheng (2000) show how the accuracy and the upper and the
lower limits are dened for a single chromosome. Using the
following representation for the domain [a
j
,b
j
] for each variable x
j
:
2
m
j
1
ob
j
a
j
10
3
r2
m
j
1
1
where the accuracy of 0.001 represented by the range from a
j
to b
j
is multiplied by 10
3
to move the decimal point by the required
number of digits. The power m
j
then represents the number of
bits required in the chromosome. The mapping of each variable is
obtained by
x
j
a
j
d
chr
b
j
a
j

2
m
j
1
1
where d
chr
is the decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0 determined
by the chromosome.
The parameters for the principal parameters of the hull are put
into a format for the GA. The length, beam and draft can be
described by a binary representation where the limits above are
used to determine binary values. Using the equation above to
determine the number of bits required for the ranges assumed for
the length, beam and draft and a decimal accuracy of 0.001 gives
the following, for an example of length limitation between 10 and
30 m, a breadth limitation between 3 and 5 m, and a draft
limitation between 1 and 3 m:
Length : 2
m
j
1
o3010 10
3
r2
m
j
1, m
1
15
Beam : 2
m
j
1
o53 10
3
r2
m
j
1, m
2
11
Draft : 2
m
j
1
o31 10
3
r2
m
j
1, m
3
11
To represent the hull offsets, the matrix W is formed from m
stations and n waterlines such that
W
station 1, waterline 1 . . . station m, waterline 1
^ . . . ^
station 1, waterline n . . . station m, waterline n
_
_
_
_
_
_
Recombination is approached by choosing a random point in
the matrix and in the string representing only the hull offset at
that position. The recombination can be done in several ways,
however in keeping with the GA methodology; the matrices are
recombined following the point in the offset, swapping the
remaining row after the offset point and the remaining column
below the offset point.
While it is simple to use the offsets directly in the chromo-
some, in order to create hulls that are at least somewhat fair in
shape, without compromising on the use of offsets versus math-
ematical hull shapes, a method was adopted to use both iterative
B-Spline surfaces as described in Gerald and Wheatley (1999),
and a representation of the offsets using offset intervals. The
method transforms the offsets into an array of offset intervals,
with the premise being that a station can be drafted using each
neighbor. The matrix W is then transformed from the offsets at m
stations and n waterlines into differences between offsets. Using
y
ij
as an individual element in the array of offsets
y
ij 1
y
ij
Dy w
ij
where Dy is the difference between adjacent offsets; w
ij
is the
chromosome representation of next change in offset and
w
ij
w
l
w
u
w
l
d
chr
where w
l
is the lower limit for difference; w
u
the upper limit for
difference; d
chr
the decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0 determined
by chromosome.
It should be noted that while for convenience the hull was
modeled in terms of offsets, so that a table of offsets could be
automatically generated, given the fact that a B-spline surface
was in fact used for modeling of the hull, a more direct and
accurate interpretation of the hull surface could have been
achieved using the control points of the B-spline surface directly
in the optimization, rather than the use of varying hull offsets, as
one of the input parameters sets that were varied during the
optimization.
4. Fishing vessel optimization
Fishing vessels have typically developed from what were
historically small inshore shing vessels that gradually evolved
into larger vessels, as depicted in Fig. 5. Possibly as a result of this
historical evolution, Turkish shing vessels often have a wide
high beam and low depth, as well as low draft as described by
Alkan (2004), and for the shing vessels that were the focus of the
study, this could result in the possibility of reduced large angle
stability and higher block coefcients, that as one detrimental
factor can lead to higher resistance. It is the authors observation
that their evolution from small craft that was built and hauled up
on shore has resulted in shallow draft and broad beam. Hull forms
for small boats originally built up to 10 m in length have been
scaled up to vessels as large as 60 m in length for commercial
shing. Scaling the hull form has provided large working areas for
the decks and shallow draft, but this has not always proven
advantageous in terms of the resistance, stability and seakeeping
characteristics.
The problem formulation begins with the requirement to
satisfy some particular design characteristics, in this case the
owners requirements for a shing boat hull. The shing boat can
be considered a difcult design problem for optimization because
it is a small craft relative to ordinary cargo vessels, and require-
ments such as the working conditions on the deck are critical for
safety concerns. The shing boat example uses a number of
factors representing the design criteria and the owners require-
ments that are given next.
4.1. Fishing boat design characteristics
The resistance, seakeeping and stability evaluations all have a
large impact on the design. For shing boats, stability is a primary
concern and regulations concerning stability are dictated by
Fig. 5. Typical Turkish shing trawler 49 m in length (http://www.maritimesales.
com/EU10.htm).
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1059
regulation societies. As an example in this study, a typical GM
requirement is assumed of 0.40 m. For prediction of the GM
pertaining to stability an empirically derived formula for shing
boat models can be used (Grubisic, 2001).
The GM formula is given as follows using breadth (B) and
depth (D):
GM
max
0:163e
0:742B=D
The minimum depth (D
min
) that can be used is a function of the
length (L):
D
min
0:266L
0:77
In addition to the stability requirement, an owners require-
ment is assumed by specifying a sh-hold volume as used by
Grubisic (2001). Fish hold volume (V
FH
) is largely governed by the
size of the vessel, and is directly related to the economic value of
the bull. For comparison, a design value is assumed as an example
for a sh hold volume of 95.2 m
3
as in the study by Grubisic
(2001). In that model the sh hold is obtained by the following
relation by rst obtaining a sh hold length (L
FH
). This is
calculated using a correlation formula with respect to the length
of the waterline (L
wl
):
L
FH
0:157L
1:26
wl
Fish hold volume is then obtained by
V
FH
0:38 L
FH
B D
1:08
One parameter that is not included specically is the depth of
the model. For our purpose, as we are mostly concerned with the
underwater portion of the hull, the depth is simply modeled as a
function of draft (T) according to the following relation:
D1:27 T
In addition to the minimum sh hold requirement and the GM
requirement, a desired volumetric displacement can be used,
which can also be considered as an owners requirement. An
additional design requirement, in the form of a constraint, was
imposed for a waterplane coefcient of 0.80. This represents a
secondary hull form coefcient, rather than a principal parameter,
which is used as a means of maintaining a workable deck area,
but not directly to inuence the hull form. If other methods for
ensuring deck area are used as a constraint then this waterplane
coefcient restriction does not have to be used.
The shing boat example introduced some restrictions on the
hull for the length, beam and draft. Grubisic (2001) used a length
restriction between 10 and 30 m. In all of the runs in this study, it
was shown that the length tends towards the maximum limit.
Unless the optimization penalizes length, possibly due to cost or
another restriction, which could be based on restrictions accord-
ing to the type of shing as imposed by quotas, or port restric-
tions, as well as by the cost of the vessel, the tendency is for the
length to move towards the maximum allowable length. Hence,
should a shorter vessel be required then a limit must be imposed
by the maximum allowable length.
It should be noted that cost has not been included in this
study, though this will an overriding consideration in any real
optimization problem. For our study, reliable costing data was
unobtainable for shing boat construction, as most of the data is
commercial and propriety information. Also in the current meth-
odology, imposing arbitrary limits on the hull form using known
coefcients is replaced by a search of the design space driven by
performance indices. Since these secondary coefcients are not
used it is prudent to limit the main dimensions so as to
investigate a reasonable design space. In addition to restricting
the beam, limits are also imposed on the draft. Besides the design
requirements, for the example shing vessel used in this study
the following conditions and limits are imposed, and are sum-
marized in Table 1 along with the other criteria.
In order to include these constraints in the optimization
process, the penalty method is utilized. The penalty is found per
candidate using a method by Gen and Cheng (2000) according to
the two main design requirements for sh hold volume and GM:
penalty 1
1
2
D
VFH
D
VFHmax

D
GM
D
GM max
_ _
where D
V
FH
is the deviation of the sh hold from the required and
D
GM
is the deviation of GM from the required. For example, for the
sh hold volume:
if r
VFH
Required V
FH
V
FH
D
VFH

r
VFH
, if r
VFH
40
0, if r
V
FH
o0
_ _
The maximum and minimum are from among the population
in each generation. The penalty times the performance objective
gives the tness function for the hull for the particular objective.
For example, for RCI, the tness function is then given by
Fitness 1
RCIRCI
min
RCI
max
RCI
min
_ _
penalty
As the previous outline shows, each objective can be tested
accordingly with each of the design requirements included as a
constraint. Alternatively if there is the possibility of maximizing
or minimizing a particular design requirement, then these can be
included as objectives. However additional objectives take addi-
tional computation time whereas using constraints take almost
no additional time at all, therefore, where possible, the use of
constraints should be considered rather than objectives. This does
not preclude the fact that design requirements could be modeled
as objectives.
In some cases the displacement was considered as a require-
ment. It is modeled in a similar way as the previous constraints,
but because of the importance of displacement as a design
requirement, it was given a larger priority. Taking it as a separate
term rather than averaging it together with other constraints
resulted in the following formulation:
penalty
D
r
D
rmax
1
1
2
D
VFH
D
VFHmax

D
GM
D
GM max
_ _ _ _
The deviation is calculated in a similar manner for the sh hold
volume or GM requirement and the penalty is again used as
multiplication factor of the tness for each objective.
Table 1
Fishing boat design characteristics.
Characteristic Requirement Formulation
GM Minimum
GM0.40
GMmax 0:163e
0:742B=D
Depth As relates to V
FH D
min
0:266L
0:77
Fish hold volume (V
FH
) V
FH
95.2 m
3
V
FH
0:38 L
FH
B D
1:08
Fish hold length As related to V
FH L
FH
0:157 L
1:26
wl
Depth Related to draft (T) D1.27T
Waterplane coefcient
(C
wpl
)
C
wpl
0.80 C
wpl
waterplane area/(L B)
Length (L) 10.0rLr30.0 m Change in parameter
example 2
Beam (B) 3.0rBr5.0 m Change in parameter
example 2
Draft (T) 1.0rTr3.0 m Change in parameter
example 2
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1060
4.2. Exploration of genetic algorithm functionality
Because using a Genetic Algorithm is a stochastic and heuristic
approach, it is useful to conduct some initial investigations that
determine to what extent the algorithm can be used to change
parameters and produce useful results. ITU shing hull series
have been used mainly to compare the optimal hulls derived with
the well-known resistance characteristics of the original series. As
a series, the different hull forms are similar enough in application
to test the methodology for the development of an optimal shing
boat. Since none of the hulls are exactly alike, they represent a
good series of offsets to use for the optimization.
Using the ITU 1B hull for comparison, the optimization was
rst conducted at a single of Froude number (Fn0.28176) to
examine the feasibility of the optimization. As shown in Fig. 6,
length, beam and draft, as well as sh hold volume and displaced
volume, vary for the best or increasingly optimal hull forms. The
optimal stability characteristic is shown in the GM value given in
Fig. 7 is near the required value.
In addition to the optimization of a single hull some investiga-
tion into the GA aspect was conducted. A comparison of the
number of hulls per generation indicates that while according to
GA practice 100 hulls would yield superior results, even 20 hulls
can provide good results as shown in Fig. 8.
4.3. ITU shing boat with xed principal parameters
The ITU shing boat (ITU 148/1B) is optimized with the given
constraints on the length, beam, and draft. It is convenient for
comparison to look at the resulting hull form if the principal
parameters remain constant and the displacement is set as a target
objective in the form of a constraint, as previously described. In this
case the only change is the hull form and in the offsets. As the
displacement is set as a constraint, the sh hold constraint can
actually be removed. Two iterations of the B-spline surface are used
to obtain a fair hull, and the maximum variation in the offsets
is 790% of each offset interval. Fig. 9 shows the change in the hull
formin which the principal dimensions are xed for ITU148/1B using
an initial population of 20 hull variants that are optimized over 100
generations. The last optimal hull (in solid lines) is overlaid with the
original hull (in dashed lines) in Fig. 9. The changes in the hull form
are not very great, as expected, though some difference in the sections
can be seen. The extreme ends of the hull appear to have widened
whereas the mid-ship sections, though nearly the same, have
narrowed.
The waterline except at the mid-section shows a tendency to
narrow. This is probably in response to the objective to minimize
the resistance, which is subsequently made up in the rest of the
body by having fuller sections elsewhere. However, since the
optimization is not solely a function of resistance, this observa-
tion is made on the basis of only one performance index, and may
in fact be subject to other performance factors.
The performance indices for resistance, seakeeping and stabi-
lity are plotted in Fig. 10 to show how the results evolve over the
0
30
60
90
120
150
L

(
m
)

V
,
F
H
V

(
m
3
)
Generations
Fish Hold Volume
Volume
Length
1 3 5 6 9 10 12 15 16 21 37 38 40 48 49
Fig. 6. Volume, length and sh hold volume for increasing optimal hulls.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 21 23
G
M
,
B
,
T

(
m
)
Generations
Beam
Draft
GM
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 25 27 29
Fig. 7. Maximum GM with beam and draft for increasingly optimal hull forms.
0.0014
0.00145
0.0015
0.00155
0.0016
0.00165
0.0017
0.00175
0.0018
0
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

I
n
d
e
x
Generations
20 Hulls
50 Hulls
100 Hulls
20 40 60 80 100
Fig. 8. Comparison of number of hulls for each generation using ITU 1B.
Fig. 9. ITU 148/1-B original and modied hull with xed principal parameters.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Generation
0.0070
0.0072
4.3000
4.6000
0.0500
0.0520
Performance for ITU 1B with Fixed Dimensions
R
C
I
S
K
I
S
T
I
X
Fig. 10. Stability, Seakeeping and resistance index performance by generation.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1061
different generations. The stability index at the top graph starts
low and increases rapidly, over 60 generations. The seakeeping
index also starts off high and is lowered over subsequent genera-
tions as seakeeping motion is minimized. Finally, the resistance
index also starts off high and lowers, quite quickly, becoming
more or less the same after 10 generations and is maintained over
the course of the next 60 generations. After 60 generations, no
further Pareto Optimal hulls were found.
Comparing the actual performance from the evolved hull with
the original ITU 148/1-B hull, for resistance, the total and wave
resistance coefcients are shown in Fig. 11. The wave resistance
at higher Froude numbers is lower, from 3.8510
2
to
3.2810
2
at a Froude number of 0.5, which corresponds to a
reduction of 14.8% of the wave resistance.
The pitch is somewhat larger at lower Froude numbers but is
reduced at higher Froude numbers, as seen in Fig. 12. The heave
as shown in Fig. 13 is lower at smaller Froude numbers and is
coincidental at larger Froude numbers. The overall result is to
lower the seakeeping index.
Though the stability index increased, these improvements in
resistance and seakeeping come with a nominal cost in the GZ
stability from the original hull form, as dynamic stability as given
by the area under the GZ curve, shown in Fig. 14, is reduced. The
stability can vary and a different optimal form having good
resistance and seakeeping, as well as stability characteristics,
can also be chosen. For the ITU 1B example the GM of 1.111 m
was used for the original hull form while a GM of 1.057 m was
obtained for the modied hull. The KM, which is independent of
KG, is 2.749 m and 2.65 m for the original and modied hulls,
respectively.
4.4. ITU shing boat with change in principal parameters
If the principal parameters are allowed to vary according to the
limits described previously, some quite different and unusual
results occur. Using a sh hold volume requirement of 95.2 m
3
, as
in the example by Grubisic (2001), and re-running the ITU 148/1-B
example yields the optimal hull as shown in Fig. 15. No constraint is
set for the actual displaced volume in this particular run. The beam in
this case is quite wide and the draft quite shallow. The limits in the
main dimensions explored a space with a minimum draft of 1.5 m, a
maximum beam of 8 m and a maximum length of 30 m. In trying to
Resistance Coefficients for ITU 1B given Fixed Dimensions
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0
Froude Number
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
Original Wave resistance
Modified Wave resistance
Original Total
Modified total
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fig. 11. ITU 148/1-B original and modied total and wave resistance.
ITU 1B Original and Modified Pitch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0
Froude Number
P
i
t
c
h
Original Pitch
Modified Pitch
0.1 0.2
Fig. 12. ITU 148/1-B original and modied pitch motion.
ITU 1B Heave Motion for Original and Modified
given Fixed Dimensions
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Froude Number
H
e
a
v
e
Original Heave
Modified Heave
Fig. 13. ITU 148/1-B original and modied heave motion.
GZ Curve fro ITU 1b Original and Modified
with Fixed Dimensions
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 20 30 40 50 60 70
Heel (deg)
G
Z

(
m
)
Original
Modified
10
Fig. 14. GZ curve for original and modied ITU 148/1-B given xed dimensions.
Fig. 15. ITU 148/1-B original and evolved hull form with change in principal
parameters.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1062
achieve minimum resistance the hull is evolving towards maximum
length, while for stability the hull tends towards the maximumbeam.
The shallow draft is driven by the minimization of resistance given
that there is no restriction on displacement. The displacement
achieved in this case was only 110 m
3
. However much that this wide
at hull is notable in Turkish shing eets, the results may be
impractical.
As in the previous case, only 100 generations with a popula-
tion of 20 variants was run. Two iterations of the B-spline surface
are used to obtain a smooth hull and 790% variation in the
offsets interval is allowed. The body plan shown in Fig. 15 for the
optimal hull shows a larger beam to achieve a larger vessel to
match the requirement for the sh hold volume. This results in a
vessel with more displacement but, interestingly, a somewhat
shallower hull.
Resistance index trends for optimal RCI versus generation is
shown in Fig. 16. Large improvements in the RCI is seen in the
rst 10 generations, with nominal changes after 10 generations
and no change after 70 generations. Similarly, the SKI perfor-
mance by generation is shown in Fig. 17 and indicates improve-
ments in the SKI up to 65 generations. The stability index is
shown in Fig. 18 and also shows an increase in stability index.
Fig. 19 shows one view into the performance for resistance and
seakeeping as they tend towards their respective minimums, with
the last Pareto Optimal 67th generation data point plotted
indicating how the optimization is working.
5. Conclusions
A method for conducting optimization of hull forms was
applied to Turkish shing vessels with the intent of improving
the resistance, seakeeping and stability performance for a given
set of constraints. A shing boat hull is used as an example of how
hull form optimization can be accomplished using a Multi-
Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA). The particular MOGA
developed during this study allows automatic selection of a few
Pareto Optimal results for examination by the designers while
searching the complete Pareto Front. The optimization uses the
three performance indices for resistance, seakeeping and stability
to modify the hull shape and obtain optimal hull offsets, as well as
optimal values for the principal parameters of length, beam and
draft. The modication of the Istanbul Technical University (ITU)
148/1-B shing boat series hull was presented by rst xing the
principal parameters and allowing the hull offsets to change, and
secondly by simultaneously allowing variation of both the princi-
pal parameters and the hull offsets. Improvements in all three
objectives were found. For further research the methodology can
be modied to allow for the addition of other performance
objectives, such as cost or specic mission objectives, as well as
the use of enhanced performance prediction solvers. In addition,
Fig. 16. RCI optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
Fig. 17. SKI optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
Fig. 18. STIX optimal performance by generation for ITU 148/1-B with change in
principal parameters.
Fig. 19. SKI versus RCI optimal for ITU148/1-B with change in principal parameters.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1063
one or more hulls could be evaluated by experiment to validate
the results of using this particular optimization approach.
References
Alkan, A.D., 2004. The Turkish shing eet: technical features and design
evaluations. Brodogradnja 52 (1), 2129.
Coello Coello, C.A., 1996. An Empirical Study of Evolutionary Techniques for
Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design. Ph.D. Thesis. Tulane
University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Danisman, D.B., Goren, O., Insel, M., Atlar, M., 2001. An optimization study for the
bow form of high speed displacement catamarans. Marine Technology 38 (2).
Day, A.H., Doctors, L.J., 1997. Resistance optimization of displacement vessels on
the basis of principal parameters. Journal of Ship Research 48 (4), 249259.
Dejhalla, R., Mrsa, Z., Vukovic, S., 2002. A genetic algorithm approach to minimum
ship wave resistance problem. Marine Technology 39 (3), 187195.
Gammon, M.A., 1990. Modifying Thin-Ship Wave Resistance Computation for
Transom Stern Ships. Master of Applied Science Thesis. Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Canada.
Gammon, M.A., Alkan, A.D., 2001. A resistance study of low L/B vessels with
Transoms. In: Proceedings of the Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels Conference, Ancona, Italy.
Gammon, M.A., 2004. Ship Hull Form Optimization by Evolutionary Algorithm.
Ph.D. Thesis. Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gammon, M.A., Yilmaz, H., 2003. Stability evaluation for shing boat hull
optimization. In: Proceedings of the Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels Conference, Ancona, Italy.
Gen, M., Cheng, R., 2000. Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization.
Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Gerald, G.F., Wheatley, P.O., 1999. Applied Numerical Analysis, 6th edition
Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine
Learning. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, Massachusetts.
Grubisic, I., 2001. Improvement of the shing vessel concept design model. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Techniques and Technology of Fishing
Vessels, Ancona, Italy.
Kafal, K., S- aylan, O

., S- alc, A., 1979. Development of hull forms of shing boats

suitable for Turkish Waters (in Turkish). T

UB
_
ITAK (The Scientic and Techno-
logical Research Council of Turkey), Project Number G-416, Istanbul, Turkey.
Larrson, L., Eliasson, R., 2000. Principles of Yacht Design, London. Adlard Nautical.
Maisonneuve, J.J., Harries, S., Marzi, J., Raven, H.C., Viviani, U., Piippo, H., 2003.
Towards optimal design of ship hull shapes. In: Proceedings of the 8th
International Marine Design Conference, National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, vol. 2, pp. 3142.
Schaffer, J.D., 1985. Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic
algorithms. In: Genetic Algorithms and their Applications: Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Genetic algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 93100.
Yasukawa, H., 2000. Ship form improvement using genetic algorithm. Ship
Technology Research 47, 3544.
Yilmaz, H., 1999. Effect of form parameters on stability of shing vessels. In:
Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Techniques and Technology in Fishing
Vessels, Ancona, Italy.
Zaraphonitis, G., Papanikolaou, A., Mourkoyannis, D., 2003. Hull form optimization
of high speed vessels with respect to wash and powering. In: Proceedings of
the 8th International Marine Design Conference, vol. 2. National Technical
University of Athens, Athens.
M.A. Gammon / Ocean Engineering 38 (2011) 10541064 1064